Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
gilbo12345

Macro And Micro

Recommended Posts

Macro and micro evolution are other words used and abused by creationists. While they were originally used in scientific media, they are now considered archaic because they fundamentally are the same and are therefore superfluous. Their only difference is in the amount of time that has transpired. Even creationists can not argue against micro evolution (I know I am using a word I just explained was defunct, but I am doing so because it is relevant to this example) because that would mean even new breeds of dog would not be able to exist.

 

Another use of the macro/micro evolution ideas is that macro evolution is evolution above the species level. This is more accurate than the above uses, however creationists will deny that this happens (possibly because they believe that would require the above condition.) Quite simply, it does happen and it has been observed happening in both of the life domains. All that is required for speciation to occur is for a subset of a population to undergo enough genetic change that it can no longer interbreed with the parent clade or any sibling clades. Not accepting this definition is not only moving the goalposts, but moving it to an unreasonable and impossible position.

 

I would be very interested to see your evidence for your claims above.

 

 

What experiments demonstrate that (Macro-)evolution and variation (micro) are the same mechanism?

 

Please note I am asking for EXPERIMENTS... Not for some guy claiming they are the same from a blog post or the personal opinions from your favourite scientist. Even a journal article making this claim would be useless if they have no evidence to back up this claim.

 

 

If you have no experimental basis for claiming they are the same mechanism then....

 

- why do evolutionists make this claim without evidence?

- would you be willing to retract your statements in the quote above?

- are you concerned that evolutionists claim this is science, despite having no experimental basis which is the fundamental basis for the scientific method?

- are you even more concerned that it is called "a fact" despite having no evidence? Shouldn't we be skeptical of unsupported claims such as these?

 

 

A member in the beginning of this thread described a fish changing into something that is not a fish. That can't happen; nothing will ever stop being what it already is. We did not evolve from fish, we share a common ancestor with the fish. This ancestor was a water dwelling organism that was not a fish, nor an amphibian, reptile, bird, or mammal. Those distinctions did not occur for quite some time later. This species was a simple organism that was the progenitor of the Chordata phylum. This phylum includes anything with a central notochord (in the subphylum, vertebrate, this becomes our spinal cord) and it did not have lungs or gills.

 

This is patently absurd....

 

Considering that Eukaryotic bacteria are assumed to have "evolved" from Prokaryotic bacteria... Does this mean that Eukaryotes are also Prokaryotes as well as being Eukaryotes?

 

Does this mean that all multi-celled life are also considered to be single-celled bacteria since "nothing will stop being what it already is"....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I would be very interested to see your evidence for your claims above.

 

 

What experiments demonstrate that (Macro-)evolution and variation (micro) are the same mechanism?

I would say... all of them! Evolution is simply evolution. There is no fundamental difference between gene drift, duplication, deletion, etc over a short period of time verses gene drift, duplication, deletion, etc over a long period of time.

 

 

Please note I am asking for EXPERIMENTS... Not for some guy claiming they are the same from a blog post or the personal opinions from your favourite scientist. Even a journal article making this claim would be useless if they have no evidence to back up this claim.

I think you are misunderstanding something. These are terms that were invented to distinguish between different levels of evolution. But were later deemed unnecessary and the language of the field was reworked to be more accurate. I actually learned about macro and micro evolution in high school biology, but my education is out of date as those terms have been discarded. Th same thing happened in my Earth science class. The way Earthquake shockwaves are described changed because the old way provided unnecessary distinctions.

 

If you have no experimental basis for claiming they are the same mechanism then....

 

- why do evolutionists make this claim without evidence?

No such word as evolutionist. And I hope you consider the points I made above.

- would you be willing to retract your statements in the quote above?

Do you understand why it is incorrect to be making distinctions that don't exist and are you going to stop doing so?

- are you concerned that evolutionists claim this is science, despite having no experimental basis which is the fundamental basis for the scientific method?

Again, read my above explanations.

- are you even more concerned that it is called "a fact" despite having no evidence? Shouldn't we be skeptical of unsupported claims such as these?

Do you just copy and paste these questions at the end of every response?

 

 

This is patently absurd....

 

Considering that Eukaryotic bacteria are assumed to have "evolved" from Prokaryotic bacteria... Does this mean that Eukaryotes are also Prokaryotes as well as being Eukaryotes?

A couple of misunderstandings here. You seem to be confused between modern bacteria and early single-celled organisms. Eukaryotic life did not "evolve" from prokaryotic life. What basically happened was that the earliest cells were more similar to prokaryotes in that they had no nucleolus, mitochondria, or organelles with membranes. In the earliest stages of life existing on Earth, evolution occurred in more of a horizontal sense. Larger membranes with enveloped other smaller simple membrane cells which formed the earliest versions of organelles, such as the nucleolus and mitochondria, and this symbiotic relationship turned into the progenitors of the earliest eukaryotes.

 

Does this mean that all multi-celled life are also considered to be single-celled bacteria since "nothing will stop being what it already is"....

Here's your second misunderstanding. There is no classification that divides multi cellular and unicellular life like that. There exists the domain, Eukaryote. That domain includes unicellular kingdoms such as Amoeboza and Rhizaria as well as multi cellular kingdoms such as Archaeplastda, Fungi, and Animalia. Modern multi cellular life forms did not evolve from modern unicellular ones. We are both the robust modern day decedents of billions of years of evolution from the earliest eukaryotes. Those early eukaryotes were the ancestors of everything with a nucleus in their cells. It is perfectly valid for multi cellular life to evolve from unicellular life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That claim of how prokaryotes evolved into eukaryotes is astounding! Do you have any evidence for that?!

 

I find it very difficult to see how even a prokaryote could have formed in the Hadean/early Archaen. Think about those boiling hot waters and high tides from the closeness of the moon

 

How did the micelles form?

Where did lipids come from?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That claim of how prokaryotes evolved into eukaryotes is astounding! Do you have any evidence for that?!

Remember, eukaryotes did not evolve from prokaryotes. They are the result of smaller cells being absorbed by larger cells creating a symbiotic relationship. The smaller cells now had shelter and easy access to food, while the larger cell had an energy source. The evidence is the observation that eukaryote cells have nuclei with their own membranes as well as mitochondria with their own D.N.A. Cells within cells!

 

I find it very difficult to see how even a prokaryote could have formed in the Hadean/early Archaen. Think about those boiling hot waters and high tides from the closeness of the moon

Are you saying that life can't exist in very hot environments? Have you heard of extremaphiles? Hot waters and churning tides are full of energy, chemistry requires energy, more energy allows for more complex chemistry, and life is basically just a constant series of chemical reactions.

How did the micelles form?

Where did lipids come from?

These are forms of molicules that carbon naturally creates. Organic molicules (molicules that are hydrocarbon based) are observed forming naturally, even in the vacuum of space! http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2003/aug/11/amino-acid-detected-in-space

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What experiments demonstrate that (Macro-)evolution and variation (micro) are the same mechanism?

I would say... all of them! Evolution is simply evolution. There is no fundamental difference between gene drift, duplication, deletion, etc over a short period of time verses gene drift, duplication, deletion, etc over a long period of time.

 

 

Such as? I am asking for experiments not a recollection of what you get told in school.

 

Please note I am asking for EXPERIMENTS... Not for some guy claiming they are the same from a blog post or the personal opinions from your favourite scientist. Even a journal article making this claim would be useless if they have no evidence to back up this claim.

I think you are misunderstanding something. These are terms that were invented to distinguish between different levels of evolution. But were later deemed unnecessary and the language of the field was reworked to be more accurate. I actually learned about macro and micro evolution in high school biology, but my education is out of date as those terms have been discarded. Th same thing happened in my Earth science class. The way Earthquake shockwaves are described changed because the old way provided unnecessary distinctions.

 

I think you are the one who is misunderstanding something.... I have asked you for EXPERIMENTS... Are you going to provide some?

 

You claim these terms are describing different "levels" of evolution... I am merely asking for your evidence... Please don't reply again until you have some experiments to present which support your aforementioned assumptions..

 

If you have no experimental basis for claiming they are the same mechanism then....

 

- why do evolutionists make this claim without evidence?

No such word as evolutionist. And I hope you consider the points I made above.

- would you be willing to retract your statements in the quote above?

Do you understand why it is incorrect to be making distinctions that don't exist and are you going to stop doing so?

- are you concerned that evolutionists claim this is science, despite having no experimental basis which is the fundamental basis for the scientific method?

Again, read my above explanations.

- are you even more concerned that it is called "a fact" despite having no evidence? Shouldn't we be skeptical of unsupported claims such as these?

Do you just copy and paste these questions at the end of every response?

 

1. The only points I see is the fact that you've failed to do as I asked multiple times... Even this reply is ignoring the question I asked you...

 

Why do evolutionists make these claims without evidence? I really would like to know the answer to this since it perplexes me that for a group of people who tout about the necessity of evidence in science, they have none for their own beliefs and assumptions... I find the whole situation ironic to the nth degree.

 

2. Again you've completely ignored the question... If you cannot provide experimental basis for your assumptions, (as has happened), then would you be willing to admit that they are incorrect? Its a no-brainer question... Of course you can be wrong if you have no evidence, hence why I asked you for evidence and why I find the fact that you ignored this request very important.

 

3. What explanations? I already stated that I wanted EXPERIMENTS not a recount of what your favourite scientist's opinions are... I want evidence not more assumptions and unsupported claims.

 

4. Nope I wrote these just for you... Do you ignore any question a person asks you about your evidence? Is this what science-literacy is reduced to these days?

 

 

 

This is patently absurd....

 

Considering that Eukaryotic bacteria are assumed to have "evolved" from Prokaryotic bacteria... Does this mean that Eukaryotes are also Prokaryotes as well as being Eukaryotes?

A couple of misunderstandings here. You seem to be confused between modern bacteria and early single-celled organisms. Eukaryotic life did not "evolve" from prokaryotic life. What basically happened was that the earliest cells were more similar to prokaryotes in that they had no nucleolus, mitochondria, or organelles with membranes.

 

Then they ARE prokaryotes.... Duh!

 

Please go look up what a prokaryote is, because you've just given the text-book example right there...

 

 

 

In the earliest stages of life existing on Earth, evolution occurred in more of a horizontal sense. Larger membranes with enveloped other smaller simple membrane cells which formed the earliest versions of organelles, such as the nucleolus and mitochondria, and this symbiotic relationship turned into the progenitors of the earliest eukaryotes.

 

Firstly what experiments confirm this? Or are we, yet again, treated to another round of "just so stories" courtesy of evolutionist assumptions... Again I am asking for EXPERIMENTS.

 

Additionally how is this possible without sacrificing the structural integrity of the membrane of the cell doing the swallowing? I wrote a thread on this a few years ago and we never got a satisfactory answer...

 

 

Does this mean that all multi-celled life are also considered to be single-celled bacteria since "nothing will stop being what it already is"....

Here's your second misunderstanding. There is no classification that divides multi cellular and unicellular life like that. There exists the domain, Eukaryote. That domain includes unicellular kingdoms such as Amoeboza and Rhizaria as well as multi cellular kingdoms such as Archaeplastda, Fungi, and Animalia. Modern multi cellular life forms did not evolve from modern unicellular ones. We are both the robust modern day decedents of billions of years of evolution from the earliest eukaryotes. Those early eukaryotes were the ancestors of everything with a nucleus in their cells. It is perfectly valid for multi cellular life to evolve from unicellular life.

 

So are we still prokaryotes?

 

The story of the "evolution" of whales sets a "dog-like" creature evolving into a whale... So under your "logic" here, we would be forced to conclude that whales are also "dog-like"...

 

 

 

 

 

That claim of how prokaryotes evolved into eukaryotes is astounding! Do you have any evidence for that?

Remember, eukaryotes did not evolve from prokaryotes. They are the result of smaller cells being absorbed by larger cells creating a symbiotic relationship. The smaller cells now had shelter and easy access to food, while the larger cell had an energy source. The evidence is the observation that eukaryote cells have nuclei with their own membranes as well as mitochondria with their own D.N.A. Cells within cells!

 

Your opinions are not evidence, please understand this.... It will make the learning easier :)

 

So what were these "smaller cells" and these "larger cells" since by your own claims in the post earlier these were exactly like.... Prokaryotes.... Or are you going to arbitrarily claim they were neither in order to try and dodge this contradiction?

 

 

 

I find it very difficult to see how even a prokaryote could have formed in the Hadean/early Archaen. Think about those boiling hot waters and high tides from the closeness of the moon

Are you saying that life can't exist in very hot environments? Have you heard of extremaphiles? Hot waters and churning tides are full of energy, chemistry requires energy, more energy allows for more complex chemistry, and life is basically just a constant series of chemical reactions.

 

Please try reading WTT's reading...

 

He isn't asking about whether they exist, the important word you've ignored is the word HOW

 

How did archea "evolve"? How could they exist in the the extreme environment before having their specialised systems of adaption, yet how could these systems "evolve" when there is no selection pressure of the environment driving selection for those systems to exist... Its a chicken and the egg conundrum, which came first?

 

 

 

 

How did the micelles form?

Where did lipids come from?

These are forms of molicules that carbon naturally creates. Organic molicules (molicules that are hydrocarbon based) are observed forming naturally, even in the vacuum of space! http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2003/aug/11/amino-acid-detected-in-space

 

How did the micelle "evolve" before the proteins and enzymes necessary in membrane formation and maintenance "evolve"?... Its the same conundrum as above.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Such as? I am asking for experiments not a recollection of what you get told in school.

Actually, I explained how what i was taught in school was wrong, or at least out dated.

 

I think you are the one who is misunderstanding something.... I have asked you for EXPERIMENTS... Are you going to provide some?

I'm afraid that there are no experiments that are going to contain the phrase, "And therefore, micro evolution equals macro evolution." They were never thought to be different mechanisms.

You claim these terms are describing different "levels" of evolution... I am merely asking for your evidence... Please don't reply again until you have some experiments to present which support your aforementioned assumptions..

Perhaps you will respond better to analogy. One day, a man invents a new form of moving a human body from point A to point B. It is called, "Walking". After the scientific community concludes that walking is an efficient and simple technique of human powered locomotion, they decide to further distinguish it by describing walking across a single room as "micro walking" while traveling between buildings is called "macro walking". However, upon further consideration, it is concluded that those extra terms are unnecessary. How does one distinguish a micro walking event from a macro walking event? If macro walking is the process of walking from one building to another, what about very large buildings that have an interior distance equal to the distance between a couple of suburban houses. Is one micro and one macro despite being the same distance? And the mechanism for micro and macro walking is exactly the same, so are those terms really necessary? No, so they are no longer used. Walking is just walking.

 

 

1. The only points I see is the fact that you've failed to do as I asked multiple times... Even this reply is ignoring the question I asked you...

 

Why do evolutionists make these claims without evidence? I really would like to know the answer to this since it perplexes me that for a group of people who tout about the necessity of evidence in science, they have none for their own beliefs and assumptions... I find the whole situation ironic to the nth degree.

 

2. Again you've completely ignored the question... If you cannot provide experimental basis for your assumptions, (as has happened), then would you be willing to admit that they are incorrect? Its a no-brainer question... Of course you can be wrong if you have no evidence, hence why I asked you for evidence and why I find the fact that you ignored this request very important.

 

3. What explanations? I already stated that I wanted EXPERIMENTS not a recount of what your favourite scientist's opinions are... I want evidence not more assumptions and unsupported claims.

 

4. Nope I wrote these just for you... Do you ignore any question a person asks you about your evidence? Is this what science-literacy is reduced to these days?

Your questions did not get answered in the form you were asking because they were non sequitur.

 

 

 

Then they ARE prokaryotes.... Duh!

 

Please go look up what a prokaryote is, because you've just given the text-book example right there...

I said they were similar to prokaryotes in that they lacked membrane bound organelles. But there were no organelles period! These were not true prokaryotes yet and they wouldn't be for quite a while later. The earliest cells that can be loosely called life were simple fatty acid bilayers containing primitive strands of R.N.A. Both of these compounds can be observed forming naturally and it is entirely reasonable to conclude that R.N.A. could have been encapsulated by the semi-permeable fatty acid bilayer membrane. These cells are not prokaryotes or eukaryote yet.

 

Firstly what experiments confirm this? Or are we, yet again, treated to another round of "just so stories" courtesy of evolutionist assumptions... Again I am asking for EXPERIMENTS.

I am sorry, but I have been unable to find sources on the internet that don't require paying to access more than just the abstract, but horizontal gene transfer is something that is still observable today. http://www.cell.com/trends/microbiology/abstract/S0966-842X%2800%2901703-0?_returnURL=http%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0966842X00017030%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

Remember that famous "National Geographic" article showing the tree of life being chopped down with the title "Darwin was Wrong"? This is what scientific discovery the article was based on was actually describing. The first life on Earth was not a single source forming and evolving into more complex; their was a lot of horizontal "evolution" before the branching tree of life began to take shape

Additionally how is this possible without sacrificing the structural integrity of the membrane of the cell doing the swallowing? I wrote a thread on this a few years ago and we never got a satisfactory answer...

Are you saying it's not possible that one cell can consume another? That Amoebas don't eat Paramecium?

 

 

 

So are we still prokaryotes?

No, and we never were.

The story of the "evolution" of whales sets a "dog-like" creature evolving into a whale... So under your "logic" here, we would be forced to conclude that whales are also "dog-like"...

I haven't heard of the land dwelling ancestor of whales being described as "dog like." From what I understand, whales and porpoises share a common ancestor with horses, cows, and camels. What this means is that all five of those groups are still members of the same clade and super clades of which that common ancestor was. I think those five groups and their ancestor were members of the subclass, Eutheria. Just like we never stopped being Hominini, Hominidae, Primates, or Mammals despite further evolution and diversification

 

 

 

 

 

Your opinions are not evidence, please understand this.... It will make the learning easier smile.png

I'm not giving opinions.

So what were these "smaller cells" and these "larger cells" since by your own claims in the post earlier these were exactly like.... Prokaryotes.... Or are you going to arbitrarily claim they were neither in order to try and dodge this contradiction?

They were not Prokaryotes. It takes more than not having a nucleus to be a Prokaryote. These early cells didn't even have D.N.A.! They could not have had D.N.A. because D.N.A. is not a self replicating molecule.

 

 

Please try reading WTT's reading...

 

He isn't asking about whether they exist, the important word you've ignored is the word HOW

 

How did archea "evolve"? How could they exist in the the extreme environment before having their specialised systems of adaption, yet how could these systems "evolve" when there is no selection pressure of the environment driving selection for those systems to exist... Its a chicken and the egg conundrum, which came first?

This was not an evolutionary event, this was an Abiogenesis event. The Earth was a very different place from what it is today. What we call extremeophiles (at least the ones that live in very hot environments) are actually living in environments that are much more similar to what life originally formed in billions of years ago. It may seem inhospitable to us, but a hot rich chemical soup is actually perfect for life. There was not a need for life to find away to adapt specialized systems to be able to survive, it was already flourishing.

 

 

 

 

How did the micelle "evolve" before the proteins and enzymes necessary in membrane formation and maintenance "evolve"?... Its the same conundrum as above.

Proteins and enzymes? No. R.N.A. and fatty acid bilayers form naturally without requiring D.N.A. transcription.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Macro and micro evolution are other words used and abused by creationists. While they were originally used in scientific media, they are now considered archaic because they fundamentally are the same and are therefore superfluous. Their only difference is in the amount of time that has transpired.

 

Google Scholar returns 1,250 hits on "macroevolution" under 2014 alone. You can see that the term is still used often in scientific literature. So right off we can see your first claim is false.

 

There are problems with your second claim as well, that the only difference between Micro and Macro is time. There are certainly some evolutionists who promote that idea (usually the ones doing public relations), but many other evolutionists who do not.

 

A cursory examination on macroevolutionary discussion will typically involve mention of unusually strong selection pressures, such as extreme climatic shifts, mass extinction events, etc. that supposedly drive relatively rapid accumulation of new traits. On the other hand, a lack of these strong pressures will typically result in stasis, where populations do not really change in any substantial way. Evolutionists will tell you that stasis is not bound by time... it can potentially last for hundred of millions, if not billions of years. So even from an evolutionary perspective we can see that "more time" is no guarantee of anything.

 

In that sense, I think it's fair to say that lots of "microevolution" will not necessarily lead to "macroevolutionary" changes as evolutionists love to claim. We could take all of the qualitative "evolutionary" processes we actually observe today, and let them repeat indefinitely, all we would see is the same general stasis... skin or coats changing color, bird beaks growing or shrinking, skulls getting a little bigger, a little smaller, etc... You stack up these types of changes for a billion years and you're not going to see any novel change. You may get a superficially changed appearance like a Chihuahua, but its underlying genetic and anatomical functions are essentially the same as its ancient predecessor, only with varied expression levels and constraints of traits that were already present, not to mention extreme lowering of fitness.

 

Honestly, you couldn't look at the kind of change we see today and say "just add more time"... if you understand what you're looking at anyways. In my opinion, someone who does that is either dishonest or ignorant. Many evolutionists do understand that it is not merely about time, it is about the strength of selection pressure.

 

The evolutionist would have to appeal to these supposed extreme selection pressures operating over thousands/millions of years that would really get the innovative body-plans moving down the assembly line.

 

It's another one of these cases where you have to use the assumption of Universal Common Descent as evidence that it happened, and that comparatively extreme life changes will continue to happen in the future. Like so many other things regarding evolution theory, what is observed is never enough to extrapolate without making these major metaphysical assumptions.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such as? I am asking for experiments not a recollection of what you get told in school.

Actually, I explained how what i was taught in school was wrong, or at least out dated.

 

I see this as an attempt to dodge what I have asked you to do...Which was to provide an example of what you were claiming.... Where is the example of an experiments? Do you have experiments to support your claims?

 

 

 

I think you are the one who is misunderstanding something.... I have asked you for EXPERIMENTS... Are you going to provide some?

I'm afraid that there are no experiments that are going to contain the phrase, "And therefore, micro evolution equals macro evolution." They were never thought to be different mechanisms.

 

So you admit that you have no experimental basis for your claims...

 

Also it seems you've unwittingly admitted that the belief that micro is the same as macro is due to people's thoughts, (aka opinions)... Sorry buddy, opinions and what people "think" is correct isn't science, its called having an opinion on what you "think" is logical...

 

Are opinions evidence for science, or will you admit that you have no experimental basis for your claims?

 

Its replies like these which demonstrate how evolutionist's and their brand of "science" are destroying the integrity of the scientific literacy.

 

 

 

 

You claim these terms are describing different "levels" of evolution... I am merely asking for your evidence... Please don't reply again until you have some experiments to present which support your aforementioned assumptions..

Perhaps you will respond better to analogy. One day, a man invents a new form of moving a human body from point A to point B. It is called, "Walking". After the scientific community concludes that walking is an efficient and simple technique of human powered locomotion, they decide to further distinguish it by describing walking across a single room as "micro walking" while traveling between buildings is called "macro walking". However, upon further consideration, it is concluded that those extra terms are unnecessary. How does one distinguish a micro walking event from a macro walking event? If macro walking is the process of walking from one building to another, what about very large buildings that have an interior distance equal to the distance between a couple of suburban houses. Is one micro and one macro despite being the same distance? And the mechanism for micro and macro walking is exactly the same, so are those terms really necessary? No, so they are no longer used. Walking is just walking.

 

Actually I would respond better if you could actually provide some experimental evidence, like I have asked.... A story isn't evidence...

 

(Again demonstrating how evolutionary "science" destroys science literacy by way of teaching kids that stories are science or can be used as evidence)

 

 

1. The only points I see is the fact that you've failed to do as I asked multiple times... Even this reply is ignoring the question I asked you...

 

Why do evolutionists make these claims without evidence? I really would like to know the answer to this since it perplexes me that for a group of people who tout about the necessity of evidence in science, they have none for their own beliefs and assumptions... I find the whole situation ironic to the nth degree.

 

2. Again you've completely ignored the question... If you cannot provide experimental basis for your assumptions, (as has happened), then would you be willing to admit that they are incorrect? Its a no-brainer question... Of course you can be wrong if you have no evidence, hence why I asked you for evidence and why I find the fact that you ignored this request very important.

 

3. What explanations? I already stated that I wanted EXPERIMENTS not a recount of what your favourite scientist's opinions are... I want evidence not more assumptions and unsupported claims.

 

4. Nope I wrote these just for you... Do you ignore any question a person asks you about your evidence? Is this what science-literacy is reduced to these days?

Your questions did not get answered in the form you were asking because they were non sequitur.

 

Care to demonstrate how these questions are non sequitur? Or will this be yet more unsupported claims, which you'd demand we accept by faith....

 

I had thought the questions rather logical... If you haven't provided evidence, (twice now) then why not ask...

 

- why do evolutionists make this claim without evidence?

- would you be willing to retract your statements in the quote above?

- are you concerned that evolutionists claim this is science, despite having no experimental basis which is the fundamental basis for the scientific method?

- are you even more concerned that it is called "a fact" despite having no evidence? Shouldn't we be skeptical of unsupported claims such as these?

 

 

 

Then they ARE prokaryotes.... Duh!

 

Please go look up what a prokaryote is, because you've just given the text-book example right there...

I said they were similar to prokaryotes in that they lacked membrane bound organelles. But there were no organelles period! These were not true prokaryotes yet and they wouldn't be for quite a while later. The earliest cells that can be loosely called life were simple fatty acid bilayers containing primitive strands of R.N.A. Both of these compounds can be observed forming naturally and it is entirely reasonable to conclude that R.N.A. could have been encapsulated by the semi-permeable fatty acid bilayer membrane. These cells are not prokaryotes or eukaryote yet.

 

Firstly, do you have any experiments which can confirm these claims of yours? Or are these yet more claims we are required to accept on faith?

 

Secondly, as I attempted to say (perhaps not bluntly enough), that in your description of what you claimed Eukaryotes "evolved" from you described a prokaryotic cell....

 

Thirdly, to claim a form of 'proto-cell' before-hand would be to engage in with the imaginary since there is no evidence of life simpler than prokaryotes (apart from viruses that is).

 

Firstly what experiments confirm this? Or are we, yet again, treated to another round of "just so stories" courtesy of evolutionist assumptions... Again I am asking for EXPERIMENTS.

I am sorry, but I have been unable to find sources on the internet that don't require paying to access more than just the abstract, but horizontal gene transfer is something that is still observable today. http://www.cell.com/trends/microbiology/abstract/S0966-842X%2800%2901703-0?_returnURL=http%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0966842X00017030%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

Remember that famous "National Geographic" article showing the tree of life being chopped down with the title "Darwin was Wrong"? This is what scientific discovery the article was based on was actually describing. The first life on Earth was not a single source forming and evolving into more complex; their was a lot of horizontal "evolution" before the branching tree of life began to take shape

 

I know what horizontal gene transfer is, (and it is why I believe we cannot name bacteria since they have the potential to change into a different type within a single generation)...

 

What I was asking was the evidence used to demonstrate that what you claimed was what occurred in the past... What experiments support your claims?

 

 

 

Additionally how is this possible without sacrificing the structural integrity of the membrane of the cell doing the swallowing? I wrote a thread on this a few years ago and we never got a satisfactory answer...

Are you saying it's not possible that one cell can consume another? That Amoebas don't eat Paramecium?

 

Good point. My bad.

 

 

So are we still prokaryotes?

No, and we never were.

 

By your own description the cells which you believe engulfed prokaryotic cells to become Eukaryotic cells are Prokaryotes themselves...

 

Perhaps you can demonstrate how these cells are different to a prokaryote... DEMONSTRATE, not just say they are without evidence.

 

(Seems like we have more equivocation from the evolutionist camp...)

 

The story of the "evolution" of whales sets a "dog-like" creature evolving into a whale... So under your "logic" here, we would be forced to conclude that whales are also "dog-like"...

I haven't heard of the land dwelling ancestor of whales being described as "dog like." From what I understand, whales and porpoises share a common ancestor with horses, cows, and camels. What this means is that all five of those groups are still members of the same clade and super clades of which that common ancestor was. I think those five groups and their ancestor were members of the subclass, Eutheria. Just like we never stopped being Hominini, Hominidae, Primates, or Mammals despite further evolution and diversification

 

 

Pakicetus....I rest my case...

 

So are whales still dog-like, (or cows if you prefer)....

 

Or is the claim that organisms don't stop being what they were before as idiotic as it sounds....

 

 

Your opinions are not evidence, please understand this.... It will make the learning easier smile.png

I'm not giving opinions.

 

Actually you are.... I know its a steep learning curve, but its a necessary one... at least for those who truly care about science and scientific integrity.

 

Otherwise I'd ask you for the evidence to support your claims, IF your claims are not your opinion then you can demonstrate it by way of providing supporting evidence.... (considering your recent track record with providing evidence when asked, forgive me if I do not hold my breath)

 

 

 

So what were these "smaller cells" and these "larger cells" since by your own claims in the post earlier these were exactly like.... Prokaryotes.... Or are you going to arbitrarily claim they were neither in order to try and dodge this contradiction?

They were not Prokaryotes. It takes more than not having a nucleus to be a Prokaryote. These early cells didn't even have D.N.A.! They could not have had D.N.A. because D.N.A. is not a self replicating molecule.

 

Then what are they?

 

What evidence do you have to support your claim of their existence.... Again, asking for experiments.... not opinions....

 

 

 

Please try reading WTT's reading...

 

He isn't asking about whether they exist, the important word you've ignored is the word HOW

 

How did archea "evolve"? How could they exist in the the extreme environment before having their specialised systems of adaption, yet how could these systems "evolve" when there is no selection pressure of the environment driving selection for those systems to exist... Its a chicken and the egg conundrum, which came first?

This was not an evolutionary event, this was an Abiogenesis event. The Earth was a very different place from what it is today. What we call extremeophiles (at least the ones that live in very hot environments) are actually living in environments that are much more similar to what life originally formed in billions of years ago. It may seem inhospitable to us, but a hot rich chemical soup is actually perfect for life. There was not a need for life to find away to adapt specialized systems to be able to survive, it was already flourishing.

 

You've completely ignored the point.... If there was no need for the specialized system then how could it evolve? Remember natural selection only selects for traits that are beneficial, meaning the environment would need to invoke a benefit for the specialized system in order for it to be selected for... However how then did the organism survive without the system whilst it was in the process of "evolving", since evolution takes "millions of years" remember...

 

 

How did the micelle "evolve" before the proteins and enzymes necessary in membrane formation and maintenance "evolve"?... Its the same conundrum as above.

Proteins and enzymes? No. R.N.A. and fatty acid bilayers form naturally without requiring D.N.A. transcription.

 

Where did the proteins and enzymes come from?

 

 

 

 

Do you realise that much of what you've stated is simply stories?...

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... Macro and micro evolution are other words used and abused by creationists. While they were originally used in scientific media, they are now considered archaic because they fundamentally are the same and are therefore superfluous. Their only difference is in the amount of time that has transpired. Even creationists can not argue against micro evolution (I know I am using a word I just explained was defunct, but I am doing so because it is relevant to this example) because that would mean even new breeds of dog would not be able to exist. The goalpost moving occurs when a creationist creates a strawman claiming that macro evolution would require some species changing into something completely different. A member in the beginning of this thread described a fish changing into something that is not a fish. That can't happen; nothing will ever stop being what it already is. We did not evolve from fish, we share a common ancestor with the fish. This ancestor was a water dwelling organism that was not a fish, nor an amphibian, reptile, bird, or mammal. Those distinctions did not occur for quite some time later. This species was a simple organism that was the progenitor of the Chordata phylum. This phylum includes anything with a central notochord (in the subphylum, vertebrate, this becomes our spinal cord) and it did not have lungs or gills.

 

Another use of the macro/micro evolution ideas is that macro evolution is evolution above the species level. This is more accurate than the above uses, however creationists will deny that this happens (possibly because they believe that would require the above condition.) Quite simply, it does happen and it has been observed happening in both of the life domains. All that is required for speciation to occur is for a subset of a population to undergo enough genetic change that it can no longer interbreed with the parent clade or any sibling clades. Not accepting this definition is not only moving the goalposts, but moving it to an unreasonable and impossible position.

I would be very interested to see your evidence for your claims above. ....

gilbo12345, what I find noteworthy--I'm employing euphemism here--is that JRC characterizes the qualifiers "micro/macro" when applied to "evolution" as "archaic" and "superfluous", implying that they are not valid as qualifiers of the word "evolution", but he proceeds to employ them in the way he declares is not valid.

 

This, to me, needs to be addressed before requesting evidence for something that may not be true--very confusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gilbo12345, what I find noteworthy--I'm employing euphemism here--is that JRC characterizes the qualifiers "micro/macro" when applied to "evolution" as "archaic" and "superfluous", implying that they are not valid as qualifiers of the word "evolution", but he proceeds to employ them in the way he declares is not valid.

 

This, to me, needs to be addressed before requesting evidence for something that may not be true--very confusing.

 

If he declares something isn't valid then he would need evidence for such yes? However with your choice of quote from JRC you are assuming what I am asking him to provide evidence for... Perhaps refer to the fact that I asked for evidence for claims, meaning more than one.

 

Whether JRC believes that the claims are archaic means very little, such is merely his opinion and therefore isn't evidence of anything... but his opinion.

 

Or are we all allowed to make unsupported claims about anything? Could I use this new-found logic to arbitrarily claim that 'evolution is idiotic'... No need for evidence, we are all allowed to make unsupported claims and declare them as factual.

 

 

Maybe we can play a game of "spot the unsupported claim"

 

 

JRChadwick, on 19 Nov 2014 - 4:10 PM, said:snapback.png

Macro and micro evolution are other words used and abused by creationists. While they were originally used in scientific media, they are now considered archaic because they fundamentally are the same and are therefore superfluous.How is this known? Is the same mechanism used? What experiments support this? Their only difference is in the amount of time that has transpired. Again how is this known? Where are the experiments? Is this the only difference? Even creationists can not argue against micro evolution (I know I am using a word I just explained was defunct, but I am doing so because it is relevant to this example) because that would mean even new breeds of dog would not be able to exist.

 

Another use of the macro/micro evolution ideas is that macro evolution is evolution above the species level. This is more accurate than the above uses, however creationists will deny that this happens (possibly because they believe that would require the above condition.) Quite simply, it does happen and it has been observed happening in both of the life domains. I am asking for examples of this observation... Perfect opportunity for evidence... All that is required for speciation to occur is for a subset of a population to undergo enough genetic change that it can no longer interbreed with the parent clade or any sibling clades. Is this macro or speciation now, you've jumped to a different concept.... but again, evidence is needed Not accepting this definition is not only moving the goalposts, but moving it to an unreasonable and impossible position.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

- why do evolutionists make this claim without evidence?

No such word as evolutionist. And I hope you consider the points I made above. ....

Wow, I wonder whether that falls into the same camp as my word 'Evolutionaries'?.

 

There are many, many results of a !Yahoo search on "evolutionist" but zero results for my word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point is, we use the term, micro-evolution to really mean that animals can change. Everybody agrees animals can change, it just has never been shown that they can change into other animals. There is no way to falsify the claim that these changes will lead to unimaginably great changes. Please tell me how to falsify that if you say it happened? You just baldly state it as though it happened, but logically fragmentary inductive, forensic evidence does not offer you any proof, so those claims are conjectural.

 

There is a logical axiom I am aware of that goes like this:

 

The greater a claim, the greater the evidence must be to support it.

 

The reason Gilbo is correct to demand evidence/experiment, is because nobody would argue that a bacteria can become resistant, because that is a small claim, but to claim some sort of quadruped land-mammal, yes - with four legs, became a whale, is a colossal claim. Indeed, it's a whale of a claim, and a whale of a tale. If we COMPARE the micro-claim with the macro-claim, one claims animals can adapt which has been observed, the other claims molecules will lead to man, which is an astronomical claim, that therefore demands astronomically powerful evidence.

 

think about it. If I said I can, "walk like a man" then that's a small claim, but to say, "I can fly like superman", is rather a different thing to say the least.

 

So a great claim requires greater evidence, according to the notation of logic.

 

But what we actually see is poor evidence of evolution. Bacteria has had millions of years to evolve in our sight, because bacteria-years aren't human years. But what have we saw? We have saw adaption, or micro-evolution.

 

i myself prefer to call it adaptation, because micro-evolution is misleading, it implies that a part of macro evolution is happening, when in fact experiments have shown that the same bacteria are not evolving morphologically speaking, but rather they are only adapting to survive. This is not the step in a chain. Indeed, we have seen that information is generally lost from gene pools, the only way eyeless fish will get their eyes back is if gene-flow occurs from another population. Once they're gone - don't expect another set of eyes, because adaptation has never been shown to create eyes.

 

And that's all we want - just one novel set of convergent peepers would satisfy us, the fact evolution can't produce ANYTHING for us, should be enough for us to put this big claim into the rest of our collection of FICTION.

 

Friends, only one thing will get you an incredibly complex set of peepers, and that is the God you so ungratefully do not give His obvious due!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That claim of how prokaryotes evolved into eukaryotes is astounding! Do you have any evidence for that?!

 

I find it very difficult to see how even a prokaryote could have formed in the Hadean/early Archaen. Think about those boiling hot waters and high tides from the closeness of the moon

 

How did the micelles form?

Where did lipids come from?

Want the Truth,

 

Please read my post on the thread "Understanding vs. Acceptance," Pg. 4. I'm 79 years old, and I have yet to see one piece of fossil evidence to prove evolution happened. No, not one! Stephen Jay Gould, one of the most imminent paleontologists of the last century admits this (see my referenced post). Did this lack of evidence cause him to accept his Creator. No. No. A thousand times no. As a rescuing device, he invented, out of whole cloth, "Punctuated Equilibria." One would expect this theory to be scientific. It is not. It is magic. Why did Gould not accept the truth?

 

The longer one holds a belief the more difficult it is to let it go, even when hit in the face with irrefutable truth. To accept truth, one has to admit he was wrong. That requires humility (letting go of one's pride.

 

TeeJay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point is, we use the term, micro-evolution to really mean that animals can change. Everybody agrees animals can change, it just has never been shown that they can change into other animals. There is no way to falsify the claim that these changes will lead to unimaginably great changes. Please tell me how to falsify that if you say it happened? You just

baldly state it as though it happened, but logically fragmentary inductive, forensic evidence does not offer you any proof, so those claims are conjectural.

 

The claim is not only falsifiable, but the contrary claim is unfalsifiable. If we ever observed a barrier to evolution, that prevented microevolution from occuring, it would prove that macroevolution is not microevolution on a different scale. However, you could never prove they are the same. No matter how much microevolution is observed you could always say the barrier was a little bit further, in some feature that we haven't fully examined.

 

If there were a reason why microevolution and macroevolution are different, you would be able to find it. We understand a great deal about our biology. We have a great understanding of the mechanisms of microevolution. You should be able to find something, be it an organ, gene, protein ect, and show how the mechanisms of microevolution are incapable of evolving it. But, no one even attempts such a thing.

 

The reason Gilbo is correct to demand evidence/experiment, is because nobody would argue that a bacteria can become resistant, because that is a small claim, but to claim some sort of quadruped land-mammal, yes - with four legs, became a whale, is a colossal claim. Indeed, it's a whale of a claim, and a whale of a tale. If we COMPARE the micro-claim with the macro-claim, one claims animals can adapt which has been observed, the other claims molecules will lead to man, which is an astronomical claim, that therefore demands astronomically powerful evidence.

 

If microevolution is indeed the same as macroevolution, then there's no distinction between the evolution of a whale and the evolution of anti-biotic resistance besides scale.

 

think about it. If I said I can, "walk like a man" then that's a small claim, but to say, "I can fly like superman", is rather a different thing to say the least.

 

There's a big difference there. We are well aware of the reasons why flying is different to walking. No one has ever successfully provided a reason why microevolution is different to macroevolution.

 

But what we actually see is poor evidence of evolution. Bacteria has had millions of years to evolve in our sight, because bacteria-years aren't human years. But what have we saw? We have saw adaption, or micro-evolution.

 

i myself prefer to call it adaptation, because micro-evolution is misleading, it implies that a part of macro evolution is happening, when in fact experiments have shown that the same bacteria are not evolving morphologically speaking, but rather they are only adapting to survive. This is not the step in a chain. Indeed, we have seen that information is generally lost from gene pools

 

A lot of creationists use the "losing information" argument. The problem is no one actually knows what information is. No one knows how to measure its gain or loss, nor how to determine whether a sequence of DNA is or is not information.

 

the only way eyeless fish will get their eyes back is if gene-flow occurs from another population. Once they're gone - don't expect another set of eyes, because adaptation has never been shown to create eyes.

 

Would you expect us to be able to observe the evolution of eyes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The claim is not only falsifiable, but the contrary claim is unfalsifiable. If we ever observed a barrier to evolution, that prevented microevolution from occuring, it would prove that macroevolution is not microevolution on a different scale. However, you could never prove they are the same. No matter how much microevolution is observed you could always say the barrier was a little bit further, in some feature that we haven't fully examined.

 

If there were a reason why microevolution and macroevolution are different, you would be able to find it. We understand a great deal about our biology. We have a great understanding of the mechanisms of microevolution. You should be able to find something, be it an organ, gene, protein ect, and show how the mechanisms of microevolution are incapable of evolving it. But, no one even attempts such a thing.

 

Okay, how about this. Give me a mechanism, at least a theoretical one, that is capable of "evolving" an organism without lever into one that has lever. That is just one organ, lever. Description of such a mechanism should be 2-3 paragraphs long, specifically describing how and which parts of a lever form first, and how the organism goes from one system of blood cleansing to another. If an organism had no blood cleansing operatus before, then that is okay.

There's a big difference there. We are well aware of the reasons why flying is different to walking. No one has ever successfully provided a reason why microevolution is different to macroevolution.

How about this: how are Audi and BMW different cars? They are both cars, right? So... they're the same car. Right? Cause they're both cars, right? Clearly this is a logical fallacy. Just because it is claimed that micro and macro are said to perform by the same mechanism does not make them the same thing. Audi and BMW are different cars despite the fact they are both cars. In the same way, micro and macro evolution are different evolutions, despite the fact that they are both evolution. Get it?

 

A lot of creationists use the "losing information" argument. The problem is no one actually knows what information is.

 

Yes, we do. There is an entire field called "information theory". Otherwise you might say that noone knows what "gravity" is, or what "force" actually is. This doesn't mean that we don't have a logical and valid theoretical framework around them, a.k.a. "science".

 

No one knows how to measure its gain or loss,

 

Yes, we do. In fact we even have a unit (in fact several of them, depending on the field of applicaiton). It's called "bit". 8 bits = byte (as in "16 MB", or "560 GB"). How did you thought that your computer measures "information"?

nor how to determine whether a sequence of DNA is or is not information.

 

I have already done this twice in two separate threads. Why, why, why do you continue to say this?

 

 

Regards

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's conclude the Lord GOD has been right from the beginning! Micro-Evo is all you can see and observed.

 

Macro-Micro are the same?

Nice try mate! Nope.

 

Gilbo, presented a really good argument. Science demands evidence but can't back their own Macro?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Data-Forge said: You should be able to find something, be it an organ, gene, protein ect, and show how the mechanisms of microevolution are incapable of evolving it. But, no one even attempts such a thing.

 

that's like saying, "you should be able to find one car and prove that the jaws of life are not capable of creating it!" How? Nobody has access to the jaws-of-life. We don't have access to the past - how can I prove evolution can't do something - that is my whole point, it is a rigged game because you know I can't prove that even if evolution is 100% incapable of creating even one organ. It's a red-herring, it's like saying, "prove superman didn't eat my dog, my dog is missing!"

 

How?

 

No - you're reversing the burden-of-proof, by arguing the opposite to what I'm saying, you are now arguing that it is our job to prove evolution can't do something. It is our job to prove that micro-evolution doesn't have a limit.

 

But it isn't our job. It has been shown, and scientifically proven that a fish can become eyeless, but it hasn't been shown that the same process can create an eye. You also conflate adaptation with novel morphology. When a bacteria becomes resistant, there isn't a new morphology. So to, "continue" micro-evolution will not lead anywhere.

 

It is your job to prove that there is no limit to micro-evolution, that it can create new genetic information. Let me know when fish are evolving new eyes, as that is NOT what micro-evolution does. It's also dishonest to say nobody attempts to show an organ incapable of evolving. That only proves ignorance on your part, scientists have examples the contraflow lung as impossible to evolve because the air sac would create a hernia. It doesn't even make sense to say a bellows-type lung could turn into a through-flow lung.

 

 

 

Data-Forge said: The problem is no one actually knows what information is.

 

Not true. Information is code, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics.

 

this writing I am typing is information, the letters are the code, the arrangement of the letters is the syntax, the meaning of the words are the semantics, the pragmatics is the application and the message conveyed is the apobetic. This also exists in DNA, exactly the same, the code is GATC, the syntax is the arrangement of the code, the meaning is the semantics the application/building is the pragmatics and the apobetic is the final result. Same can be said for binary code. Dr Werner Gitt covered a full definition in his book, "In the Beginning was information". I've read most of the book, and the definition is 100% accurate and easily proven as I just have gave two examples, writing and DNA:

 

http://creation.com/laws-of-information-1

 

 

 

If there were a reason why microevolution and macroevolution are different, you would be able to find it.

 

We have. Bacteria become resistant, there is such a rapid regeneration of bacteria, that in the past 150 years, this has been perhaps millions of bacteria years, the bacteria they study has not changed it's morphology at all in that time, even though they become resistant. It can be shown that micro evolution therefore has not led to macro-evolution. A bacteria flagellum is never going to evolve a new type of motor different from it's rotary motor because it has never been shown that micro-evolution can achieve this, nor can adaptation CREATE a motor. You have to show that it can.

 

The burden of proof is upon the people claiming micro-evolution can create new genetic information, not on those claiming it can't, otherwise that would be as fair as stating the following: "I don't think you are a human, so you should prove you are a human".

 

BACKWARDS LOGIC. No - to claim molecules-to-man can come about because of adaptation, is an astronomical claim, and the burden of proof is upon you to evidence/prove it, logically, even if you are not aware why the notation of logic demands this of you. I wrote a blog about it a year or two back, I shall fish it out if you want. It proves deductively, that the person making the claims that aren't shown to be real/factual/consisten with reality, have to prove their claim. We have ZERO real-life examples of the generation of new genetic appendages/organs/anatomy, by micro-evolution. If a fish started to evolve a new eye or a bacteria gained some new anatomical feature of morphology, then this would show some reality to your claim. As it is, there are NO EXAMPLES of micro-evolution creating anything new.

 

ERGO, you have to show that micro-evolution has no limit, I certainly do NOT have to show it does have a limit, because every example in nature shows that it is not an unlimited, creating-process. I am also not claiming that molecules-to-man came about this way. (An astronomical claim) Those making the astronomical claim must prove their claim, not us disprove it.

 

Technically, I'm deductively correct, I have already studied the logic. You haven't. You need to, otherwise you will conflate the adaptation of animals with an astronomical claim of molecules-to-man, you're whole life, and deceive yourself!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No - you're reversing the burden-of-proof, by arguing the opposite to what I'm saying, you are now arguing that it is our job to prove evolution can't do something. It is our job to prove that micro-evolution doesn't have a limit.

That's absurd. The burden of proof (logically) belongs to the one making a positive assertion of fact. For example, if I were to assert there are little green men on Mars then demand you prove there are not. In this case, one cannot prove the negative because these little green men may be hiding so effectively we can't find them. On the other hand, I could prove there are little green men on Mars by producing one.

 

The same applies when we discuss a limit to the accumulation of genetic change. One cannot prove there is no limit because it is entirely possible we haven't tested all the possibilities. On the other hand, it would be possible to show there is one by simply showing the limiting mechanism.

 

It is certainly safe to say there is no known limit to the accumulation of genetic change over time. It is always possible there is some limitation that has not (yet) been discovered. However, Gilbo call the claim we're simply waiting for this limiting mechanism to be discovered an "argument to the future" fallacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Piasan said: That's absurd. The burden of proof (logically) belongs to the one making a positive assertion of fact

 

You made a boo-boo there. It's an understandable mistake you made, to be misled by the, "positive".

 

But look:

 

I am claim you are NOT human. Would you then argue that you should have the burden-of-proof upon you, that you should be the one to prove you are a human?

 

Actually the burden-of-proof is always upon the claim that runs counter to established facts.

 

Please read more about it in this blog-entry. As I say, it's a forgivable error, as I mention in the blog entry: It might SEEM it's about the positive and negative, but it isn't:

 

http://creationworldviews.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/the-burden-of-proof.html

 

(Written in Oct 2013)

 

 

 

Piasan said: It is certainly safe to say there is no known limit to the accumulation of genetic change over time

 

It's unknown that superman ate my dog, after all, my dog is missing. But this is of no logical consequence. In the same way, there is no rational reason from the presented facts, to assume micro-evolution can create omniscient designs, or even one organ, the facts have never shown it capable of doing this, so the burden of proof rests on those claiming it can happen.

 

Notice it's not much to ask for one real-life example because the size of the claim is so large, that every animal came about this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

It is certainly safe to say there is no known limit to the accumulation of genetic change over time. It is always possible there is some limitation that has not (yet) been discovered. ...

.

Are you implying that there can be no "genetic change" without space reserved for the "old code"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the burden-of-proof is always upon the claim that runs counter to established facts.

OK.... the "established fact" is that there is no known limitation to the accumulation of genetic change over time. From there, it's a simple statement from first week calculus.... the limit of n as n+1 approaches infinity is infinity.

 

 

.Are you implying that there can be no "genetic change" without space reserved for the "old code"?

No. I have no idea how you get from the assertion there is no known limit to "there can be no 'genetic change' without space reserved."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

No. I have no idea how you get from the assertion there is no known limit to "there can be no 'genetic change' without space reserved."

.

If space must be reserved for the obsolete code then there might be space considerations. (Duh.) You have just read the purpose of my question.

 

I've repeated the sequence as it is on another page:

 

...

It is certainly safe to say there is no known limit to the accumulation of genetic change over time. It is always possible there is some limitation that has not (yet) been discovered. ...

.

Are you implying that there can be no "genetic change" without space reserved for the "old code"? (_^_)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK.... the "established fact" is that there is no known limitation to the accumulation of genetic change over time. From there, it's a simple statement from first week calculus.... the limit of n as n+1 approaches infinity is infinity.

 

But the problem is that you are assuming "accumulation of genetic change". That is a positive claim, i.e. genetic change accumulates. The burden of proof is therefore on you, to show that such a thing happens. I simply say it doesn't accumulate. Show me that it does.

 

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Piasan said: the "established fact" is that there is no known limitation to the accumulation of genetic change over time

 

There isn't any known fact that tells us that micro-evolution is unlimited, either. You need more than genetic changes. A forelimb can become a wing, arguably, as a genetic change but to create an eye you need new genetic information. That's the problem, folk don't study the differences between negative-evolution, equalized-evolution, and positive-evolution.

 

Information is lost when insects lose their wings on islands, and fish lose their eyes. (Negative evolution) But if an arm somehow adapted to become a basic wing by retrogressive features changing shape and function, this would be equalized evolution. Information isn't really lost, just changed, and anatomy is re-worked. (I am not sure this type of evolution is even possible, it is only conceivable, in that logically I can't think of anything that would necessarily stop it.) And this is what I think you are conflating micro-evolution with, you are conflating equalized evolution, where information isn't lost or gained, with positive evolution. Positive evolution would be to gain new genetic information. Eyeless fish can only regain eyes in that population through gene flow from another population, as the information for eyes is lost forever. To evolve an eye would be to gain new genetic information for lenses, eyeballs, eye-muscles, and so forth.

 

Notice there is nothing there to, "evolve" into an eye. Just like there is no information for feathers.

 

If it is just about change, then that would mean no new information had ever been gained in nature. Mathematically that's incorrect, it would be like saying that nature started out with 25 candy-sweets in a bag and still has the same 25 candy-sweets.)

 

It's not just about change - if life started as a primitive cell, then as you can see, there is rather a lot more information nowadays, such as trees, fleahs, peahs, cheese and hairy knees. So to get new genetic information, you can't change old information, you have to add it. (positive)

 

:think:

 

(I hope you at least consider what I have said.)

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There isn't any known fact that tells us that micro-evolution is unlimited, either. You need more than genetic changes. A forelimb can become a wing, arguably, as a genetic change but to create an eye you need new genetic information. That's the problem, folk don't study the differences between negative-evolution, equalized-evolution, and positive-evolution.

 

 

Mike he continually spews his perverted views of science no matter how outrageous it is. If it were simply matter of TIME changing the DNA in order to bring about the various organisms that (1) are in the fossil record, (2) are now existing offspring of different organisms in the past...then let them run experiments in the lab that reveal that such changes are possible.

 

Oh, but that's already been done...now hasn't it? Lenski's e-coli bacteria was run through approx. 60,000 generations and he ended up with (guess what?) bacteria! There were changes but no changes to a non-bacterial classification. It was the same with the drosophila (flies) experiments. The flies revealed some changes also but none became non-flies. Then more recently there was the 'geep' (part sheep, part goat) but they were hybrids.

 

Quote: "Although sheep and goats seem similar and can be mated, they belong to different genera in the subfamily Caprinae of the family Bovidae."

 

The reason they cannot change one kind (family or order class) into another is because God placed limitations upon living organisms and they will NOT do so without some serious (intelligent) genetic engineering. Even then the offspring is either sterile or badly mutated. God's Word tells us about those limitations but piasan doesn't believe what God says.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms